Shofar FTP Archive File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-14/tgmwc-14-129.07

Archive/File: imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-14/tgmwc-14-129.07
Last-Modified: 2000/03/09
Q. Will you explain to me why that order was issued as top
secret?
A. The order appeared after an operation in which we nearly
lost two boats, and contained a severe reprimand for the
Commandants in question. It was not customary for us to make
such a reprimand in a form accessible to anyone except the
Commandants and all the officers.
THE PRESIDENT: Which is the severe reprimand?
Q. Will you please explain what severe reprimand for the
Commandants you refer to?
A. It is understandable in the light of previous events -
namely, those very things which it forbids. It is largely
contained in the sentence beginning: "Rescue is against the
most primitive demands" and it is also implied by the
harshness with which the Commanders are accused of being
soft-hearted.
Q. Does this mean that the Commandants were accused of
having risked their boats too far in connection with the
rescue action of the Laconia and of acting in a manner which
was not in accordance with the dictates of war?
A. Yes. After having been repeatedly reminded during the
action of the necessity for acting in a manner in accordance
with the dictates of war.
Q. You were interrogated on this order after the
capitulation, as you told me, but you could not at the
moment remember its exact wording. How was it possible for
you not to remember this order?
A. There were certain orders which had to be kept in
collective files and which one therefore saw very
frequently. This order was not one of them, but was filed
separately after being dealt with. After it had been issued
I never saw it again until the end of the war.
Q. What did an order intended for inclusion in such a
collection look like on the outside?
A. It had to be "current order" or a reprimand signal.
Q. Did that occur in the text of the order concerned?
A. It would be in the heading of the order concerned. That
is not the case here.
[Page 25]
Q. So we may conclude from the fact that this wireless
message is not headed either "Reprimand Signal" or "Current
Order", that it did not belong to a collection of orders?
A. Yes.
Q. But then how is it possible that Lt.-Commander Mohle gave
talks on this order, apparently until the end of the war?
A. Lt.-Commander Mohle had access to all wireless messages
issued by C.-in-C. U-boats. He was entitled to select from
these signals anything he thought necessary for the
instruction of Commanders about to go to sea. It made no
difference whether the order was marked as a "reprimand" or
a "current order". He had obviously extracted this message
from the material to be used for these instructions to the
Commanders.
Q. Did Mohle ever ask you about the interpretation of that
order?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever hear of any other source interpreting this
order to mean that survivors were to be shot?
A. No.
Q. Can you judge from your own experience, whether this
order had any practical results, or could have any effect in
practice, on the allied naval losses?
A. That is very difficult to judge. At that time something
like eighty per cent of all U-boat attacks were probably
carried out in conditions which made any attempt at rescue
impossible. That is to say, these attacks were made on
convoys or on vessels in close proximity to the coast.
The fact that some twelve captains and engineers were
brought back as prisoners by U-boats is an indication of
what happened in other cases. It is difficult to say, with
any degree of certainty, whether it was possible to take
rescue measures in all cases. The situation was probably
such that the Allied sailors felt safer in the lifeboats
than they did, for instance, aboard the U-boat and probably
were glad to see the U-boat vanish after the attack. The
fact that the presence of the U-boat meant a danger to
itself is proved by the case of the Laconia, where two U-
boats were attacked from the air while engaged in rescuing
the survivors.
I do not think it is at all certain that this order had any
effect one way or the other.
Q. What do you mean, "one way or the other"?
A. I mean whether it meant an increase or a decrease in the
number of losses amongst enemy seamen.
Q. There is one train of thought which I did not quite
understand. You pointed to the fact that approximately
twelve captains and chief engineers were made prisoners
alter this order was issued. Do you mean by that that only
in these few cases was it possible, without endangering the
submarine, to carry out the order to transfer such officers
from the lifeboats?
A. It is too much to say that it was only possible in these
few cases, but it does afford some indication of the number
of cases in which it was possible.
Q. I shall now show you the wireless message which went to
Lieutenant Schacht. It is on Page 36 of the prosecution's
Document Book. This message, too, was sent as "top secret".
What was the reason for that?
A. It is a definite and severe reprimand for the Commander.
Q. How far was that reprimand justified? Schacht had not
received previous instructions to rescue Italians only?
A. No, but it had been assumed that U-boats would realize
that it was of primary importance that Allies should be
rescued-i.e., that they should be made prisoners of war.
Apart from that, several reminders had been issued in the
course of operations, warning Commanders to be particularly
careful. After that came Schacht's report, which appeared at
the time to indicate that he had disobeyed orders.
[Page 26]
Viewed retrospectively, Schacht's action must have taken
place before C.-in-C. U-boats issued the order in question,
so that in part, at least, the accusation was unjustified.
Q. Were any further rescue measures carried out by U-boats
after this order was issued in September 1942?
A. In isolated cases; yes.
Q. Did C.-in-C. U-boats object to these rescues
A. I have no recollection of that.
Q. To your knowledge, did German U-boats deliberately kill
survivors?
A. The only case I know of - and I heard of it after the
capitulation - is that of Lieutenant Eck. We heard an enemy
broadcast which hinted at these happenings, but we were
unable to draw any conclusions from that.
Q. I now hand you the prosecution's Exhibit GB 203, which is
regarded by the prosecution as proof of the shooting of
survivors. This is the log of U-247, from which is printed
an extract on Page 74 of the second volume of my Document
Book. This extract describes an attack made by the U-boat on
a British trawler. You have already seen this log. After his
return, did the Commandant make a report on this action?
A. Yes.
Q. Did he report anything about the shooting of survivors on
that occasion?
A. No.
Q. According to a statement made by a survivor named
McAllister, this trawler, the Moren Mary, had a gun aboard.
Do you know whether trawlers had guns mounted fore or aft.
A. They were almost always in the bows.
Q. Can you remember, with the help of this extract from the
log and on the strength of your own recollections of the
Commander's report, the exact details of this incident?
A. The first thing was that the U-boat, when submerged,
encountered a number of vessels escorting trawlers close to
Cape Wrath. It tried to torpedo one of the trawlers.
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Is the witness trying to
reconstruct this from the document, reconstruct the
incident?
DR. KRANZBUHLER: I am asking him to tell us what he
remembers of the event, basing his account on his own
recollection of the Commander's report, supplemented by the
entry in the log.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he has not said whether he ever saw the
Commander.
DR. KRANZBUHLER: Oh yes; Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, all he can tell us is what the
Commander told him.
DR. KRANZBUHLER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, have him do that then.
DR. KRANZBUHLER: Yes, sir.
BY DR. KRANZBUHLER:
Q. Will you please tell us what you remember, after reading
the log?
THE PRESIDENT: Wait a minute. If he remembers anything about
what the Commander told him, he can tell us that, but the
log speaks for itself and he cannot reconstruct it out of
that. He must tell us what he remembers of what the officer
said.
DR. KRANZBUHLER: Very well, sir.
[Page 27]
BY DR. KRANZBUHLER:
Q. Will YOU please speak from memory.
A. The Commander reported that he had encountered a number
of trawlers extraordinarily close to the coast, considering
conditions at the time. Failing in his attempt to torpedo
one of them, he sank it with gunfire. That was all the more
remarkable because, in the first place, the incident
occurred quite unusually near the coast and in the second
place the Commander risked this gun fight regardless of the
presence of other vessels nearby.
Q. Were these other ships also armed trawlers?
A. It was to be assumed at the time that every trawler was
armed.
Q. The witness McAllister thought that the submarine
surfaced 50 yards away from the trawler. In the light of
your own recollections and experiences, do you think this is
possible?
A. I do not remember the details; but it would be an unusual
thing for a U-boat Commander to do.
Q. McAllister also stated the U-boat used shells filled with
wire.
THE PRESIDENT (Interposing): Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
Dr. Kranzbuhler, the Tribunal thinks that the witness ought
not to express opinions of that sort. He ought to give us
the evidence of any facts which he has. He is telling us
that in his opinion it is impossible that a naval commander
would ever bring his submarine up within 50 yards of another
vessel.
DR. KRANZBUHLER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not a matter for him to say.
DR. KRANZBUHLER: Mr. President, I was going to ask the
witness whether German U-boats used shells filled with wire
as stated by the witness McAllister. Is that question
admissible?
BY DR. KRANZBUHLER:
Q. Will you answer that question, Witness.
A. Such shells did not exist at all.
Q. Was this attack by the submarine on the Moren Mary
reported by wireless immediately? Do you know anything about
it?
A. Do you mean the U-boat Commander's report?
Q. No, by the British.
A. As far as I remember, a wireless message sent by a
British vessel was intercepted, reporting a U-boat attack in
that area.
Q. A signal is entered in the log under 0127 hours. It is
intended for Matschulat, which means that it was sent by you
to the commander, and it reads: "English steamer reports
attack by German U-boat west of Cape Wrath."
A. That is the message intended to inform the U-boat that a
wireless signal sent by a British steamer concerning a
submarine attack in that area had been intercepted.
Q. I should now like to ask you something about Standing War
Order No- 511. This is in Volume I of my Document Book, Page
46. When I presented this order, the Tribunal was not sure
of the significance of paragraph 2, which I am going to
read:
"Captains and officers of neutral ships which may be sunk
according to Standing Order No. 101 (e.g., Sweden except
Goteborg traffic), must not be taken on board, as the
internment of these officers is not permitted by
International Law."
Can you tell me first what were the experiences or
calculations which led to the inclusion of paragraph 2 in
the order?
[Page 28]
A. On one occasion a U-boat brought a Uruguayan officer - a
captain whose ship had been sunk-to Germany. We were afraid
that if we released this captain he might report some of the
things he had seen while be was interned aboard the U.-boat.
The reason for this order was to avoid difficulties of that
kind in the future; for the Uruguayan captain had to be
released and was, in fact, released.
Q. What is the meaning of the reference to neutral ships
which may be sunk, according to Standing War Order No. 101?
A. May I please see the order for a minute?
(The order is handed to the witness.)
The Standing War Order No. 101 contains the following
directives in connection with the sinking of neutral ships:
Once inside the blockade zone, all neutral ships can be sunk
as a matter of principle with two important exceptions or,
shall we say, two general exceptions.
To begin with, ships belonging to certain neutral countries,
with which agreements had been made regarding definite
shipping channels, must not be sunk; further, ships
belonging to certain neutral States which might be assumed
not to be working exclusively in the enemy's service.
Outside the blockade zone neutral ships might be sunk:
firstly, if they were not recognizable as neutrals and
therefore must be regarded as enemy vessels by the submarine
in question, and secondly, if they were not acting as
neutrals.
Q. As, for instance, those travelling in enemy convoy?
A. Yes, those travelling in convoys, if they reported the
presence of U-boats, etc., by wireless.
Q. Did paragraph (2) mean that the captains of neutral ships
would in future be in a worse position than captains of
enemy ships, or would they he in a better position?
A. This is not a question of better or worse, it is a
question of taking prisoners. They were not to be taken
prisoner, because they could not be detained as such.
Whether this meant that their position would be better or
worse is at least open to question. Captains of enemy ships
usually tried to escape being taken aboard the U-boat,
probably because they felt safer in their life-boats.
Q. What do you know about orders to respect hospital ships
at the beginning of the invasion?
A. At the beginning of the invasion, the rule in this area,
as in any other area, was that hospital ships were not to be
attacked. Commanders operating in the invasion zone then
reported that there was a very large number of hospital
ships sailing.

This site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and
to combat hatred.
Any statements or excerpts found on this site are for educational purposes only.

As part of these educational purposes, Nizkor may
include on this website materials, such as excerpts from the writings of racists and antisemites. Far from approving these writings, Nizkor condemns them and
provides them so that its readers can learn the nature and extent of hate and antisemitic discourse. Nizkor urges the readers of these pages to condemn racist
and hate speech in all of its forms and manifestations.